Responding rather late to this thread, as I indulge myself with some 
Lactnet catching-up this Sunday morning, but the wording below jumped out 
at me from a recent much-needed response to Henry Miller about his reaction 
to the recent WHO resolution.  I am grateful that the author of the 
response took the time and trouble, and I only use this as a generic 
example, but I just want to make a small plea about the language we use 
when we are being advocates for breastfeeding.

This was the wording:
>Artificial feeding does not contribute to empowerment of women *or* the 
>health of babies in developing nations.
>Women deserve to have unbiased information so that they can make an 
>informed choice.

The first statement is excellent, being absolutely true.  Amen. The second 
statement is a perfect example of how we phrase our advocacy in politically 
correct language.  It is especially tempting to invoke human rights in this 
way, and we are not the only ones who do it;  this kind of language is used 
nowadays in many policy documents, both national and international. But I 
would like to sound a note of caution about phraseology which portrays 
infant feeding as something which is done to babies by mothers (or fathers, 
or even sometimes by whole families).  Or which suggests in any way that 
our responsibility ends with the primary carers' decisions about what 
method of infant feeding they will opt for. Why?  Because it diverts our 
attention from the end-user, *the baby*.  And because it creates the 
perfect loophole for those with a different agenda to promote breastmilk 
substitutes as especially convenient and desirable because women themselves 
have absolute control over their use. The glaring omission is that when it 
comes to what information is given about infant feeding, it is not about 
what "women deserve", but about what "babies deserve".  While mothers 
should have all the help and assistance they need, the ultimate consequence 
of the mother's feeding choice is not, in fact, experienced by the mother 
herself, but by the baby. And the health consequences for the baby can be 
profound, notwithstanding the kind of information the mother received.

When we protect a mother's right to informed choice it also follows that we 
endorse her right to exercise that choice, whatever it is.  Does our 
responsibility really end there? Or is there an obligation to think ahead 
to the consequences of that choice, which fills whole libraries?  If so, we 
might need to re-think how we use the word "choice" and use something which 
more appropriately fits this life-or-death outcome. And we might need to 
clearly state the mother's *and* the baby's rights in the same sentence.

Like pregnancy and birth, the purpose of infant feeding is not merely so 
that mothers can enjoy the experience, while feeling supported and informed 
(although that is a very nice side-effect)  - its ultimate purpose is to 
have the baby survive and thrive. Once the baby is safely born, with the 
rarest exceptions, this is achieved through breastfeeding.   My plea, then, 
is that when we review documents, or respond to contentious articles, we 
keep the baby at the centre of our efforts, and don't allow others to 
forget that he exists either.

Pamela Morrison IBCLC
Rustington, UK
[log in to unmask]

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html